tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers. Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span. What would you think?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:33:00 AM (view original):tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers. Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span. What would you think?

I don't think they were moved in closer than the 325/400/325 minimums. A few teams have less, Baltimore(warehouse), SF(water), NYY(old dimensions) come to mind, but they were approved by the commissioner's office for the reasons listed. I'm talking about changing the rules to increase scoring. I don't see teams using pitchers differently or hitters drastically changing their approach. Casual fans aren't going to pay to watch two guys play catch. Something will be done.

What happens if the rule is changed to 300/380/300 and homers reach 'roid era proportions? Are you PED haters going to be OK with that?

I'll say this about the "an outs an out" argument, but I'm not getting into a conversation about this - the Mets have obviously adopted the "an outs and out" mentality, and there have been plenty of times in the last year or so when the Mets were in situations where a ground ball or a sac fly would have been beneficial, and the Mets struck out. Drives you insane. So, yes, generally putting the ball in play and making out has little benefit. But you can be sure I'd rather the guy who slugs .500 with 100 strikeouts rather than the guy who slugs .500 with 200 strikeouts. There's a benefit to putting the ball in play.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:42:00 AM (view original):I don't think they were moved in closer than the 325/400/325 minimums. A few teams have less, Baltimore(warehouse), SF(water), NYY(old dimensions) come to mind, but they were approved by the commissioner's office for the reasons listed. I'm talking about changing the rules to increase scoring. I don't see teams using pitchers differently or hitters drastically changing their approach. Casual fans aren't going to pay to watch two guys play catch. Something will be done.

What happens if the rule is changed to 300/380/300 and homers reach 'roid era proportions? Are you PED haters going to be OK with that?

I know I was joking about the Mets and Yankee Stadium homers, but I'd prefer to keep the fences where they are rather than move them in more. Long pop flys that fall into the seats is goofy. Home runs should be rewarded when a player at least hits a ball hard.

That's not really the point. Less scoring is going to lead to less interest by the casual fan. That will affect the bottom line. When that happens, baseball will do something to increase scoring. It's happened before.

If they allow teams to move fences in, resulting in steroid era homer production, are you going to be OK with it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:33:00 AM (view original):tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers. Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span. What would you think?

I'm old school. I appreciate pitching and defense. I also appreciate smart hitting and creative offense, i.e. base stealing, the well-executed hit and run, etc. Not an Adam Dunn-like player swinging for the home run when a line drive base hit to RF to score a runner from second is what's needed.

So no, I wouldn't like seeing that happen to increase scoring. That's dumbing down the game to Xbox and PlayStation standards.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2014 9:45:00 AM (view original):I'll say this about the "an outs an out" argument, but I'm not getting into a conversation about this - the Mets have obviously adopted the "an outs and out" mentality, and there have been plenty of times in the last year or so when the Mets were in situations where a ground ball or a sac fly would have been beneficial, and the Mets struck out. Drives you insane. So, yes, generally putting the ball in play and making out has little benefit. But you can be sure I'd rather the guy who slugs .500 with 100 strikeouts rather than the guy who slugs .500 with 200 strikeouts. There's a benefit to putting the ball in play.

Agreed. Runners don't typically advance a base on a strikeout. They might go from second to third on a grounder to 2B or on a ball hit to deep RF. And they may score from 3B on a deep fly ball. None of those happen on strikeouts unless there's a PB involved.